first of all. once again... NO. there werent 'tons' of left out gospels. there were 3. and they are all available in the 'religion' section of any good bookstore.

give me a reference to that whole 'the bible is made of 2 religions' thing. sounds like more internet myth crap to me.

also, if you guys are basing your contradictions on Old versus New testament... then it doesnt matter. the old testament has almost nothing at all to do with the religion anymore. the old testament is basically only there as a 'history book'. it shows lineage and tells of the worlds creation. other than that its just stories of what went on with the older followers and tells the rules they had to live by. then in the new testament, after jesus came as a martyr, all the rules changed. the old testament rules were really no longer in effect... but i guess thats the type of shit you dont read on the net, you may have to set foot in a church for that. pffft.

Wed May 14, 2003 7:47 am

Mikal kHill

Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com

First of all, there ARE tons of books left out of the Bible. For starters, the Apocrypha that takes place between the old and new testaments and cover about a 400 year period. The Old Testament isn't just history... It's also a book of laws given to God's chosen people. Jesus quotes it constantly, usually only adding a common sense twist on it. It's the basis of Judaism, and the New Testament gave birth to Christianity. The church destroyed the religion, focusing on persecution instead of Christ's intended doctrine of patience, peace, and understanding.

And whoever said "You ahve to believe it all or nothing..." Not really. The bible is a collection of books, not one big ass volume. There are lots of discrepency's in the Gospels especially, because none of those were written before Jesus had been dead for 10 years. If you skip three issues of an X-men spinoff, it doesn't mean you missed the whole story. (Lame metaphor, I know)

My guitarist and I were discussing religion the other day... He said he thinks we live in a post-apocalyptic society, and that perhaps the rapture occurred in the 40s during WWII, with the chosen traveling into the chimenys in all those death camps. It makes sense. We do live in materialistic, spiritually bankrupt society. Sounds like one of the thousand year periods to me...

Wed May 14, 2003 9:56 am

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

hugh grants hooker wrote: oh my god!!!

back to this shit?

first of all. once again... NO. there werent 'tons' of left out gospels. there were 3. and they are all available in the 'religion' section of any good bookstore.

give me a reference to that whole 'the bible is made of 2 religions' thing. sounds like more internet myth crap to me.

also, if you guys are basing your contradictions on Old versus New testament... then it doesnt matter. the old testament has almost nothing at all to do with the religion anymore. the old testament is basically only there as a 'history book'. it shows lineage and tells of the worlds creation. other than that its just stories of what went on with the older followers and tells the rules they had to live by. then in the new testament, after jesus came as a martyr, all the rules changed. the old testament rules were really no longer in effect... but i guess thats the type of shit you dont read on the net, you may have to set foot in a church for that. pffft.

you shouldn't presume things about people you've never met. But that notwithstanding, Marcion's Contridictions are in fact based upon the contridictions between the old and new testament--and I wonder if the average Jew considers the old testament "just stories"?

"there were certain books which hovered for long on the fringe of the canon, but in the end failed to secure ad mission to it, usually because they lacked this indispensable stamp[apostilic authority]. Amond these were the Didache, Hermas's Shepard, and hte Apocalypse of Peter. Thirdly, some of the books which were later included had to wait a considerable time before achieveing universal recognition. For example, Hebrews was for long under suspicion in the west, and revelation was usually excluded in the forh and fifth centuries where the school of antioch held sway."

"the first official document which prescribes the 27 books of our new testament as alone canonical is Athanasius's Easter Letter for the yerar 367, but the process was not everywhere complete until at least a century and a half later"- J.N.D. Kelly Early Christian Doctorines(HarperSanFrancisco 1978) page 60

Another Book I've read and would reccomend, probably over Kelly's book for ease of read, is WHC Frend's book the early church is also quite good.

The quote I used is within a larger chapter that also makes mention of the gnostic texts that were discarded as heretical, and of those there are quiet a few gospels written.

The bible being made up of two religions is based upon a demiurgical type reading, such as the gnostic or marcionite ones--basically what these said, is that the creator god of the old testament was blind and evil(notice how he comes into the garden and can't see or find adam and eve--and notice how the god of the old testament would--well actually if I have the time today I'll just post some of marcion's contridictions, they are interesting, whether you believe what they say or not--marcion was one of the first to actually advocate a closed canon, his canon only took part of luke and then the pauline epistles)

So anyhow, Jesus was sent by the one true God to intercede and show us the way out of our enslavement to this other God.

A good fiction read on this is Phillip K. Dick's Valis Trilogy which is a science fiction account of this. But there are many books in the nag hammadi library that are about this.

Don't make the mistake of thinking gnosticism was some small sect out in the wilderness toiling away--actually Orthodox Christianity was the minority, and even then Valentinus, a gnostic, nearly became pope.

The Nag Hammadi Library can be found online, but there are many books about it and there are diffrent editions which have the actual texts in it. Read the Gospel of Truth, and The Secret Teachings of John for two interesting reads.

My personal background is being born and raised in the belt buckle of the bible belt. Going to church and reading the bible were very significant parts to my childhood. My sister still is very very religious, and so is the rest of my family. I try very hard to keep an open mind, but I have very christian leanings.

I understand your frustration with people not reading the bible though. When I had my class in Early Christian history, there were like 90 percent of the people who had never read or heard of the bible. Like my proffessor would assign readings from the bible and most of the class would just look confused and ask where that was--he was like "uhh...it's in the bible"....I mean that blew me away. We live in a day and age where our president closes all of his speeches talking about God--and not just any God--but his God. And there are so many people that clueless about it. I could have taken any bum off the street of the town I grew up in and they would have schooled nearly every student in my class on the bible, even after the course.

Diffrent people have diffrent upbringings.

Peace

Wed May 14, 2003 10:19 am

hugh grants hookerGuest

haha, god was blind? he wasnt really a god then was he? if he was... couldnt he give himself sight? pffft.
he called out to adam in order to offer adam a chance to come out and confess what he'd done.

and there were ONLY 3 books taken out of the bible. the others you keep talking about were NEVER in the bible. they could never be verified as authentically inspired by god. some religions put a little too much faith into those and include them in their studies... but just because an apostle wrote something doesnt mean it's inspired by god and deserves to be in the bible.

who cares what the 'consider' them. the old testament IS just there for reference and history. everything in there falls into a thing called 'old doctrine'. its no longer valid. god changed the way the religion worked. he then sent jesus to spread the word of this change and to symbolize it he gave himself as the 'ultimate sacrifice'.

the bible IS one big volume. it has several writers, yes. but its all inspired directly by god. intended to be one book. one big volume as you put it.
and yes you have to believe it all according to the bible.
(i'm paraphrasing)
"if you are warm i will welcome you, if you are cold i will turn you away, if you are luke warm i will spit you out and say i never knew you".
its all or nothing. no fence riding. just like every religion i know of.

when i get more time i will let you know the direct quote i guess.

...and jesus h christ on a candle!!! how could the rapture have happened in the '40s? if that was true then how are we here? after the rapture there are only 7 years of 'rough living', then there will be the battle of armegedon, followed by 1000 year reign of peace on earth.

oh I found Marcion's antithesis. I'll post a few parts of it. It's interesting, if only to see how diffrent people can look at the same thing.

"The creator was known to Adam and to the following generations, but the father of christ is unknown, as Christ himself said of him in these words: "No one has known the father except the Son"[Luke 10:22]"

ha an interesting part considering the title of this thread.

"The God of Creation did not restore the sight of the blinded Isaac, but our Lord, because he is good, opened the eyes of many men[Luke 7:21]"

"In the Law it is said, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" [Exod. 21:24:Deut. 19:21] But the Lord being good, says in the Gospel:"If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other as well"[luke 6:29]"

"The prophet of the God of Creation commanded bears to come from the thiket and devour the children who had opposed him [2 Kings 2:14]; the good Lord, however, says, "Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven"[Luke 18:16]"

I actually do believe in a lot of the gnostic scriptures--but I have yet to meet a person who hasn't dismissed it as silly. Oddly, that's explained as well. It all makes perfect sense to me.

damn. the sixers are losing. there is no god.

Wed May 14, 2003 8:25 pm

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

hugh grants hooker wrote: they could never be verified as authentically inspired by god.

Woah.

This is the stuff that scares me about religion.

How where the other books of the bible "verified as authentically inspired by God"?

I really just don't get this stuff. It's like...all the intellect and thought takes place after the premise is assumed. There must be something wrong with my thinking.

- Shane

Wed May 14, 2003 8:59 pm

sequence

Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 2182
Location: www.anteuppdx.com

MessiahCarey wrote:

hugh grants hooker wrote: they could never be verified as authentically inspired by god.

Woah.

This is the stuff that scares me about religion.

How where the other books of the bible "verified as authentically inspired by God"?

I really just don't get this stuff. It's like...all the intellect and thought takes place after the premise is assumed. There must be something wrong with my thinking.

- Shane

You know, they sent them to God and he had his secretary, i.e. Peter, stamp that shit up notary style. Blam.

Wed May 14, 2003 9:08 pm

hugh grants hookerGuest

all the other books were written about actions, words, and miracles that could easily be verified by other people at the time... AND they all DO NOT contradict each other.

these 'other' books all just started popping up later and had NO support at all other than the author. usually, all these 'other' books also contradict everything else ever written and are full of opinionated shit.

jesus, i feel like i'm arguing with 5 year olds. you people act like anything i say is childish. try using logic and i'm sure you'll figure things out...then MAYBE you could make a reply that is worth reading.

Thu May 15, 2003 11:49 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

what are you talking about when you say "other books"?
If you are refering to the books I mentioned, none of those "popped up" later. They were there long before the canon had been established.

and no. they aren't full of opinionated shit...at least not any moreso than the rest of the bible. Books like Hermas's Shepard were a very important part of church fellowship.

Shane, as far as the whole "verified as authentically inspired by God" part, what this was, was one of the criteria that looked at writing style, and compared it to old testament texts, some of the people who put too much on that aspect of developing the canon come off as full of horseshit, but this idea was kind of a gradual process, similiar to emo music, but slower. For the most part New Testament became scripture by referring to "old" testament or jewish texts. It started with placing St. Paul's letters on the level of the old testament. And then people like Ireneaus said the gospels were equivelent to the prophets. Basically like any begininig religion, you grab for as much authority as you can give yourself.

The main thing for deciding what went into the orthodox canon was apostilic authorship. The author of the book had to somehow be connected to the apostles. Of course there were tons of texts being written under the names of the apostles by the time they got around to this, and so other criteria came up.

What we have now with regards to christianity is nothing like what it started out as. Orthodox Christianity was fighting a losing battle to many, many, diffrent sects up until Constantine decided to throw Rome's book burning, people lynching, capabilities behind the whole movement.

To try and act like the way things are now is the way they have always been with regards to scripture, is historically ignorant.

This is pretty crummily written. It's late. But I hope the relevent points are somewhat discernable. ugh.

Fri May 16, 2003 1:44 am

KrangTHE ORC BREATH

Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Location: NSW, australia

Dogma = corruption

Fri May 16, 2003 4:17 am

hugh grants hookerGuest

yes. full of opinionated shit.

to start with, marcion was a fuckin moron. he thought jesus was introducing a 'new god'. in the old testament god SEEMED more angry and furious. well, of course jesus is gonna speak more lovingly of him than others did... its his fuckin dad. haha

seriously this is one of the funniest threads in a while. thank you for letting me chuckle a bit before going to work.

"jesus christ was a gangsta rapper/they killed him and he came back and made a platinum album"

-ill bill.

"jesus knew, he was thugged out too/ a bugged out dude"

-ill bill...

'nuff said.

Fri May 16, 2003 12:26 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

hugh grants hooker wrote: yes. full of opinionated shit.

to start with, marcion was a fuckin moron.

Sadly this was the extent to which many top christian thinkers at the time chose to refute people like Montanus and Marcion.

How can you even say that it's full of opinionated shit? It's just a section of the old testament put next to a section of the new testament? You gripe at people for not using "logic" and then just resort to name-calling?

haha. But whatever. You win, HGH.

Fri May 16, 2003 1:42 pm

Jump to:

Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:57 pm